Do you want to make a difference in the energy debate?
Do you want your voice to be heard all over the world?
Do you want to ensure that clean, safe, and reliable energy is being used?
Contribute to a pro-nuclear website that is doing all of the above.
Email us at cleanenergyinsight@na-ygn.org to apply to be a regular contributor.
A North American Young Generation in Nuclear (NA-YGN) website.
What do I say if an opponent says that Nuclear Energy Is Not Safe?
Table 1
What do I say to opponents who claim that nuclear power plants could explode like a nuclear bomb?
What do I say if an opponent says that as nuclear plants get older they become more risky to operate?
Table 2
Table 3
What do I say if an opponent says that Nuclear Plants Cause Cancer?
What do I say if an opponent says that all radiation is negative, no matter the level?
What do I say to opponents who claim that Nuclear Energy is too costly?
Table 5 : Baseload Power Costs
Table 6
Courtesy - Dept. of Energy, Energy Information Administration 2009
What do I say to opponents who claim that Nuclear Power Generation is not reliable?
U.S. Capacity Factors by Fuel Type (2007)
| Fuel Type | Average Capacity Factors (%) |
| Nuclear | 91.8 |
| Coal (Steam Turbine) | 71.8 |
| Gas (Combined Cycle) | 43.3 |
| Wind | 30.4 |
| Hydro | 27.8 |
| Solar | 19.8 |
| Oil (Steam Turbine) | 19.6 |
| Gas (Steam Turbine) | 16.0 |
What do I say to opponents who claim that there is not enough uranium to support building new Nuclear Plants?
What do I say to opponents who claim that Nuclear Power Plants are terrorist targets?
What do I say to opponents who claim that Americans are not in favor of Nuclear Power?
“Overall, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity in the United States?”
Table 7
Courtesy: Bisconti Research Inc./GfK, September 2008
[Approx. Read Time: 4 minutes]
Clean Energy Insight has tried to follow the issue of uranium mining in Pittsylvania County, VA for about a year now. Mike Bloom and I (Co-Creators of this website) both grew up in the area and are hoping that safe uranium mining can offer a much-needed economic boost. As the debate continues, local newspapers like the Chatham Star-Tribune, the Danville Register and Bee, and the Martinsville Bulletin have published great op-eds regarding the issue that are all worthy of a read.
Recently, the head of the prestigious Nuclear Engineering Department at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville, H.L. Dodds wrote an informative letter-to-the-editor of the Star-Tribune regarding some of the misinformation on the issue being spread by anti-uranium mining activists.
Dodds does a tremendous service to the people of the Piedmont region by offering an open and honest dismissal of some of the scare tactics that local anti-uranium mining activists have pushed on them.
Despite the intellectually dishonest anti-uranium mining campaigns, Piedmont residents are looking forward to the completion of the recently commissioned National Academy of Sciences study on the safety of the uranium mining plans as covered by groups like the Virginia Energy Independence Alliance.
Enjoy the letter from an industry expert. (For more information on uranium mining in the Commonwealth of Virginia, see - http://www.virginiauranium.com/)
Putting uranium mining ‘misinformation’ to rest
By H.L. DODDS
Tuesday, May 18, 2010 4:56 PM EDT
As someone who has devoted my professional career to the scientific and academic pursuit of nuclear energy, I am disconcerted by the misinformation being spread by opponents of uranium mining in Virginia to stoke unwarranted fears among residents.
As Virginia examines whether to allow uranium mining, I believe it is important that citizens and policymakers have the best information available to make their decision. This is why I feel compelled to respond and put some of this misinformation to rest.
Contrary to the false assertions of some mining opponents, there is no institution better suited than the National Academy of Sciences to assess the human health and environmental impact of uranium mining in Virginia.
Residents of the state - from the Southside region to Hampton Roads - should have full trust and confidence in the National Academy as the nation’s most prestigious and respected body for scientific and technical research.
For more than a century, the National Academy has maintained an unimpeachable record for impartiality and independence from influence.
Virginia residents should also rest assured that uranium mining and milling is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the United States.
The industry, which has made great strides in the past few decades to improve protection of the environment, human health and worker safety, is overseen by a veritable alphabet soup of regulatory bodies - the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, Mine Safety and Health Administration and the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, to name a few.
These agencies are vigilant in enforcing their strict standards for radiation protection, air and water contamination, tailings management and worker safety.
For example, the maximum level of radiation exposure allowed by these regulators in areas surrounding uranium mines is equivalent to a small fraction - less than 10 percent - of the natural background radiation we all receive each year from our environment, homes and routine medical procedures.
A single abdominal x-ray would expose someone to five times the amount of radiation allowed by the EPA and NRC for uranium mining operations.
As the U.S. Secretary of Energy and Nobel laureate Stephen Chu stated unequivocally in Pittsylvania County several months ago, modern uranium mining can be done safely and in an environmentally responsible way.
There is a large body of evidence and numerous studies which have found no link between uranium mining and the incidence of cancer and other illnesses in surrounding populations.
Several studies of uranium mining and milling communities in Texas, New Mexico and Colorado conducted by John D. Boice Jr., scientific director of the National Epidemiological Institute, found virtually no difference between cancer mortality rates in mining areas versus non-mining areas.
Opponents of mining have consistently and recklessly raised anxiety among local farmers and residents by perpetuating myths about mining activities contaminating local groundwater and agriculture with harmful levels of radiation.
These myths are based on a fundamental lack of understanding of basic science and should be put to rest once and for all.
Contrary to their assertions, it would be virtually impossible for radon gas - a byproduct of uranium - to travel distances far enough and in quantities large enough to contaminate the vegetation, air and water of areas surrounding mining activities.
The elementary physics of radon gas prevent this from happening. Because radon gas is seven times heavier than air, it impossible for it to escape more than a few feet above ground and certainly to travel distances further than a few hundred feet.
This is why radon is usually found in the basements of homes because it is too heavy to climb the stairs to the first floor.
Cherry-picking and misappropriating pieces of scientific studies to prove dubious claims is a favorite pastime of anti-nuclear advocates.
So, recent attempts to misrepresent and conflate the results of an ecological study of coal mining in West Virginia with uranium mining in Virginia should come as no surprise.
The most elementary grasp of the methods, geology, geographic location, environmental footprint and scale of the two vastly different kinds of mining would prevent any responsible person from making such a spurious comparison.
The people of Virginia - particularly those living in Southside and Hampton Roads - deserve much better.
Finally, although I now live in Tennessee, I lived in the Hampton Roads area in the 1960s while working for NASA. The area is a wonderful place to live and will continue to be so with modern day uranium mining.
H. L. Dodds is IBM professor and head of the Nuclear Engineering Department at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, Tenn.
[Approx. Read Time: 9 minutes]
Few words in the English language invoke feelings of unrest and controversy as the word “nuclear”. Historically, the word has been associated with feelings of uncertainty, fear or danger, and understandably so, as nuclear technology made its debut in the mainstream media by way of its use in weapons of mass destruction. But as the general public becomes more aware and educated on the subject, many are finding that nuclear has nothing more than a bad rap.
As an illustration, let me pose this question: When you think of gasoline, does your mind initially wander to Napalm? Or better yet, does the use of fertilizer lead to thoughts of home made bombs? There are a slew of atrocious myths circulating about nuclear power which are perceived as fact by many for this very reason. One common misconception is that nuclear power plants emit substantial levels of radiation leading many to believe that operating nuclear power plants are surrounded by disfigured wildlife or that nearby residents are at a higher risk of contracting cancer or growing a third arm.
The truth is that the highly regulated nuclear industry takes the safety of the general public as its primary initiative through many stringently enforced radiological safeguards. Among the physical barriers incorporated into the design of the plants, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) enforces a number of requirements and expectations on the industry.
Take, for example, the policy statement issued by the NRC in 1986 which established safety goals and expectations with respect to an acceptable level of risk to public health and safety from the operation of nuclear power plants. According to the policy statement, the following goal was implemented as follows:
“ . . . the risk of cancer fatalities to the population near a nuclear power plant should not exceed 0.1% of the sum of cancer fatality risks from all other causes.”
As reported by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 180.7 cancers (i.e. malignant neoplasms) related deaths occurred per 100,000 people in 2006. Taking this value into account with the NRC’s expectations discussed above, for a population of 100,000 people living near a nuclear power plant the risk of cancer fatalities should not exceed 0.001 x (180.7 / 100,000) = 0.000181% – still concerned?
One might argue that NO cancer related deaths should be tolerated – agreed! Studies show that this is in fact the case and that plants exceed the NRC’s expectations (discussed further below).
The reality is, however, that we live in a radioactive world – this has been true since the beginning of time – and everyone is exposed to varying levels of radiation on a daily basis. Take for example bananas and brazil nuts, which naturally contain higher levels of radiation than other foods. Similarly, brick and stone homes have higher natural radiation levels than homes made of other building materials such as wood. Heck, our nation’s Capitol, which is largely constructed of granite, contains higher levels of natural radiation than most homes. JunkScience.com once measured the radiation emanating from granite statues in the U.S. Capitol Building and discovered that a person standing in statuary hall near the Senate Chamber would absorb 5 times more radiation than would be absorbed by standing at the fence line of a nuclear power plant.
The chart below provides a comparison for doses from everyday radiation sources relative to living near a nuclear power plant, which exposes residents to an average annual dose of less than 0.001 rem. In comparison, Title 10, Part 20, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 20) dictates that the total effective dose equivalent to individual members of the public from a licensed operating plant is not to exceed 0.1 rem in a year.
For additional consideration, the pie chart presented is from the NRC’s website and provides a percentage breakdown between natural background radiation and artificial sources. I believe the numbers speak for themselves.
The NRC similarly limits the amount of radiation that a nuclear plant worker can receive in one year. Title 10, Part 20, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 20), establishes the does limits for radiation workers. Although the limits vary, depending on the affected part of the body, the annual total effective dose equivalent for the whole body is 5 rem, although many plants go even further to restrict employees to 2 rem per year. In contrast, the Federal Aviation Administrations recommended occupational exposure limit for ionizing radiation is a 5-year average effective dose of 20 mSv (2 rem) per year, with no more than 50 mSv (5 rem) in a
single year (nearly the same standard).
Regulations imposed on nuclear power plants ensure that both the surrounding population and the workers within plants are exposed to only low levels of radiation. The fact of the matter is that the biological effects due to low levels of radiation exposure are so small that they may not even be detectable. The exact effect, however, depends on the specific type and intensity of the radiation exposure.
In order to truly wrap your mind around the risks associated with radiation exposure, it is useful to evaluate those risks relative to the risks associated with everyday life. For example, a 3-millirem exposure imposes the same chance of death — 1 in a million — as each of the following common life experiences:
Dr. Bernard L. Cohen of the University of Pittsburgh has extrapolated this approach in his book “The Nuclear Energy Option”. In Chapter 8 of the book, Understanding Risk, Dr. Cohen instructs that the most logical procedure for minimizing risks is to quantify all risks and then choose those that are smaller in preference to those that are larger. He then goes on to provide a framework for that process and applies it to the risks in generating electric power. Chapter 8 presents various everyday activities or occurrences and their associated risks. These risks are quantified then in terms of the loss of life expectancy (LLE); which is the average amount by which one’s life is shortened by the risk under consideration. The figure below shows some of the activities or occurrences investigated. It is clearly shown that living near a nuclear power plant ranks at the bottom.
Further substantiating his findings, Dr. Cohens work is also published by the NRC in Regulatory Guide (RG) 8.29. RG 8.29 offers further indication that:
“. . . the health risks from occupational radiation exposure are smaller than the risks associated with many other events or activities we encounter and accept in normal day-to-day activity.”
As mentioned earlier, countless studies have shown that populations in close proximity to a nuclear power plant receive negligible levels of radiation exposure relative to general population and are no more susceptible to cancer than the average person.
It is impractical to discuss every study ever conducted by any organization or individual regarding this matter. Instead I have listed a few additional determinations or studies from non-bias organizations concluding such.
“Ionizing radiation emissions from nuclear plants are closely controlled and involve negligible levels of exposure for communities near the plants. Reports about cancer case clusters in such communities have raised public concern, but studies show clusters do not occur more often near nuclear plants than they do elsewhere.”
The results of the survey, per John Boice, Sc.D.(who was chief of NCI’s Radiation Epidemiology Branch at the time of the survey), showed that “From the data at hand, there was no convincing evidence of any increased risk of death from any of the cancers we surveyed due to living near nuclear facilities”.
The results of the publication The results indicate that pediatric cancer incidence and mortality rates for the nuclear facility county group and nuclear facility ZIP code group were not significantly different from those for their comparison groups. In addition, there was no evidence of increased trend in cancer incidence rate after startup of nuclear power plants.
In the decades following the accident, several studies were conducted by the Pennsylvania Department of Health, all showing conclusive evidence that no negative health effects on the population surrounding the plant. In addition to the Pennsylvania Health Department studies, several other studies have examined the health impact of the TMI accident on the population and yielded similar results.
The key to dispelling this myth is to acknowlege that, as demonstrated:
Once you are able to come to terms with these facts (and I hope that this article is of some help) it becomes painstakingly obvious that, contrary to popular belief, nuclear power plants do NOT cause cancer, and in fact pose no more threat to an individuals health than 365 Tbsps of peanut butter.
[Approx. Read Time: 4 minutes]
Things may be slowing down a bit here at Clean Energy Insight over the next month or two. Currently, it is outage season for the nuclear power industry. Many of our contributors will be supporting outage work on-site at nuclear power plants.
In the nuclear power industry, an “outage” does not primarily refer to a power outage or blackout. Every Spring and Fall, when power demand is at its lowest, the nuclear industry shuts down some of their plants for maintenance and repair.
This could mean packing up and going to a nuclear power plant for the next three months, or staying at their home office and working the night shift. We will try our best to keep you updated on nuclear news and interesting nuclear power facts. However, all of our focus will be on our work in order to be as safe as possible and as productive as possible during these critical outages. Plus, working on an outage can help an engineer gain priceless experience in the field and in the industry, which will make Clean Energy Insight better equipped to bring you voices of experience. So…
In the nuclear power industry, an “outage” is a period of time in which a nuclear power plant shuts down (stops producing power) in order to perform routine maintenance, replacements, and/or re-fuel the reactor. During this time, the power utility ramps up power production at other plants, or purchases additional electricity from neighboring utilities to make up for the power production from a reactor that is scheduled for an outage.
Depending on the type of outage, it can last from one and a half to two months. Additionally, outage staff works in 12 hour shifts in order to keep things moving and to provide 24 hour support.
A nuclear plant would be able to tout a 100% capacity factor if it weren’t for these scheduled outages. Because of these necessary outages, nuclear power plants achieved an energy industry best capacity factor of 91.8% in 2008.
Some of the components that are replaced or maintenanced include but are not limited to: reactor heads, steam generators, pumps, motors, turbines and fuel.
Re-fueling outages average about 35 days in length, some have been done in 15-20 days, and are done every 18-24 months. This means that a nuclear reactor doesn’t need to be re-fueled but every 18-24 months, setting nuclear power apart from other energy sources such as coal that need to be refueled on a daily basis.
Fuel Rods
Pumps and motors must also be replaced or maintenanced during outages in order to service the plant and lengthen its service-life.
Baby Pump
Reactor coolant pump motors are the largest pump/motor assembly in a nuclear power plant. These can be about 28 feet in height, weigh over 100,000 lbs, roll at 9,000-12,000 horsepower, and spit out 88,000 gallons of water per minute.
Reactor Coolant Pump for the Westinghouse AP-1000 Reactor
Here’s a great video from National Geographic on the turbine replacement at Susquehanna Nuclear Power Plant.
Reactor vessel closure heads must be replaced at a plant periodically as well. These are pretty heavy components as well. Usually around 200,000 lbs. It’s quite a feat to be able to move an object this heavy so precisely. Here’s a great document from Bechtel on the process they use to replace reactor heads in a safe and efficient manner. Link: Bechtel Detail Design.
Reactor Head
Reactor Head being put into place
Steam generators are one of the biggest components in a nuclear power plant and can weigh around one million pounds. Moving these things is big business. It is also an art. The coordination and precision of this type of operation is impressive and intricate. The only way to give it justice is to see it in person. Although, I hope these images will help you understand the scope of this type of project.
Steam Generator
Here is a news clip from Lancaster Online showing two steam generators moving through rural Pennsylvania a couple of weeks ago on their way to Three Mile Island for the outage there slated to start October 26th. The generators will be installed and the reactors will be back online by January 1st.
The delivery route must go through multiple levels of planning including coordination with local law enforcement and structural qualification of roads and bridges along the route since the steam generators are so heavy. The steam generators that are currently running at Three Mile Island will be removed and placed in a building called an Original Steam Generator Storage Facility (OSGSF). This facility is designed and rated to prevent the release of low-level radiation to the public and environment.
These aren’t the only activities that are performed during outages. Some include modifications that will increase the life and power output of existing plants. Others may include increasing fire protection safety measures in the plant. There are many different modifications that a utility performs during outages that will increase quality and performance at their nuclear plants. Hopefully, this post provides a high-level overview of a nuclear power industry outage. For more detailed information, feel free to ask any questions in the comment section below.
